East Lyme 26-0662

Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent

July 8, 2026

Case Number

26-0662

School District

East Lyme (single student)

Person filing complaint

Parent

Grade Level

High School

Allegation(s)

Issue 1: The allegation did not constitute a potential violation of federal or state special educations and was not investigated.

Issue 2: The allegation did not constitute a potential violation of federal or state special educations and was not investigated.

Issue 3: The Parent alleged that the Student previously had an IEP accommodation of two extra class periods to hand in projects and assignments. The Parent alleged that, in May 2025, the District changed this accommodation to one extra class period, saying it was unchanged and just reworded on the IEP. Also, the Parent alleged that the District changed the assessment of the Student’s progress from ‘B or better’ to ‘passing’ without discussion at a PPT meeting. (34 CFR § 300.17(d))

Issue 4: The allegation did not constitute a potential violation of federal or state special educations and was not investigated.

Issue 5: The Parent alleged that the Speech Therapist from Kings Speech and Learning Center was invited to the Student’s May 1, 2026, PPT meeting by the District and the Parent was not made aware that such therapist would be in attendance. Further, the Parent states that all records for which consent to release was signed have not been provided to the Speech Therapist from Kings Speech and Learning Center. (34 CFR § 300.322)

Issue 6: The Parent alleged that the District sends the Student to the Library during her Resource Room time, rather than providing services in the Resource Room. (34 CFR § 300.17(d))

Issue 7: The Parent alleged that she was provided with Prior Written Notice (dated May 1, 2026) which included the provision of, “30 minutes per month of consultation to the team from Occupational Therapist”, but that the addition of such provision was not discussed at the PPT meeting. (34 CFR § 300.320)

Issue 8: The Parent alleged that on April 24, 2026, she made a written records request for all of the Student’s CT-SEDS records since March 24, 2024, and was only provided with partial records, rather than all records. (RCSA § 10-76d-18(a)(1-2))

Issue 9: The Student’s May 1, 2026, PPT meeting was the Student’s first PPT meeting of the 2025-2026 school year. The Parent alleged that the District did not read the Mediation Notice aloud during that PPT meeting. (CGS Sections 10-76d(a)(10)(F)(iii) and 10-76z(a)(7))

Conclusion(s)

Issue 3: The Parent alleged that the Student’s extra time accommodation was changed from the May 15, 2024, IEP when it allowed for two extra class periods before the Student was required to hand in an assignment, to one extra class period in the May 12, 2025, IEP. This investigator verified that this change did occur and was made through a PPT meeting in which the Parent participated. The Parent maintains that the District stated that, in application, there was no change to the amount of time that the Student would be given to hand in assignments and that the language in the IEP was only re-worded from the May 2024, IEP to the May 2025, IEP. The Parent indicates that this was misleading. No supporting materials were received for the investigation to verify the allegation that the District represented this as ‘no change’ to the Parent. However, in the recording of the May 1, 2026, PPT meeting the District stated that the original accommodation of time was changed in the May 2025, IEP (1:04;50). Notwithstanding, a review of the IEPs makes clear that the language of the May 15, 2024, IEP, (i.e., “2 full class periods past due,”) and the language of the May 12, 2025, IEP (i.e., “turn in completed assignment the next block,”) means the next class period, not two full class periods and represents a clear change to the extra time accommodation.

For quarters 1-4 during the Student’s 9th grade year and quarters 1-4 during grade 10, the Student earned all passing grades, ranging from A to C+, with the exception of a 10th grade 4th quarter grade in Algebra II Honors of D+. However, even with a D+ for the 4th quarter, the Student passed Algebra II Honors for the year with a C+. In effect, the extra time accommodation, as it was implemented, was a successful strategy for the Student and, as implemented, provided FAPE. While it is not clear if the change in amount of time that the Student had to turn in assignments was misrepresented to the Parent by the District, it is clear that FAPE continued to be provided to the Student in whatever manner the extra time accommodation was implemented. Therefore, it was concluded that the District was not out of compliance with 34 CFR § 300.17(d), 34 CFR § 300.324, or 34 CFR § 300.01. No corrective actions were issued.

Issue 5: The Parent clearly indicates in the recording of the Student’s May 1, 2026, PPT meeting, that the Parent invited the Speech Therapist from Kings Speech and Language Center and stated that the District did not. The District did, however, develop a PPT Meeting Notice which included the Speech Therapist from Kings Speech and Language Center as a participant. Both parties, the District and the Parent had, in fact, invited that therapist. The District’s invitation was based on the therapist’s indication that she would like to attend the meeting. However, in accommodating the therapist, the District did not provide the 5-school-day notice to the Parent of the therapist’s participation. This was a violation of 34 CFR § 300.322. Corrective actions were issued.

For the portion of the allegation related to the incomplete provision of records to the Speech Therapist from Kings Speech and Language Center for which consent was granted by the Parent, the most recent and relevant records for which consent was granted was provided to such therapist. However, there exists additional, earlier records for which consent was granted that were not provided to that therapist by the District. It is a general and acceptable practice for Districts to include only the more recent and relevant records to evaluators, which the District did. The granting of consent to release identified records does not constitute a requirement to provide every record to the evaluator regardless of relevance or recency. For instance, if consent was granted to provide the Student’s IEP to the evaluator, it would not be expected that every IEP in the Student’s records, regardless of recency, would be provided. The District has latitude to make a determination of which records are appropriate to provide. For this portion of the allegation, the District was compliant and corrective actions were not issued.

Issue 6: The District was compliant with the Student’s IEP when the Student worked in the school library during her resource time as this was offered to the Student as her choice, not a requirement. During the times when she worked in the school library, adult support was provided as needed. This was verified in the recording of the Student’s May 1, 2026, PPT meeting during which the District indicates that it is the Student’s choice to work in the school library and the Parent responds that the Student is making the choice to avoid another student; thereby acknowledging that the Student is making the choice to work in the library, not the school requiring it. It was concluded that the District was not out of compliance with 34 CFR § 300.17(d). No corrective actions were issued.

Issue 7: The Parent’s allegation that 30 minutes of OT consult services was added to the Student’s May 1, 2026, IEP without PPT discussion was inaccurate in that this service was not added to that IEP, but was continued from the Student’s previous IEP (dated May 12, 2025). The District acknowledges that a discussion of the continuation of the OT consultation services was inadvertently omitted at the May 1, 2026, PPT meeting. As there was no change in this service, the District was not out of compliance with 34 CFR § 300.320. No corrective actions were issued.

Issue 8: A review of the list of Student records which the District has itemized as having been provided to the Parent as compared to the itemized list of records contained in the Student’s CT-SEDS file indicates that various documents were contained in the CT-SEDS records that had not been provided to the Parent by the District. Per RCSA § 10-76d-18(a)(1-2), the Parent is entitled to one free copy of any of the documents included in the Student’s education records upon request. The District was out of compliance with the requirements of RCSA § 10-76d-18(a)(1-2). Corrective actions were issued.

Issue 9: The Mediation Notice was provided to the Parent in writing by the District at the May 1, 2026, PPT meeting (the first PPT meeting for the Student during the 2025-2026 school year) but was not read aloud as required by regulation. The District was in violation of the requirements of CGS. Corrective actions were issued.

Corrective Action(s)

  1. On or before September 30, 2026, the District shall provide training to appropriate staff regarding the notice to parents of mediation services at PPT meetings.
    1. The District shall determine the appropriate staff to include in such training.
    2. The District shall determine the format by which such training is delivered, (e.g., on-line/virtual session, via memorandum, in-person, etc.)
    3. Included in the content of such training shall be a review of:
      1. The requirement to read the Mediation Notice aloud at the conclusion of the first PPT meeting of each school year and the language of the statement to be read aloud.

Upon completion of the training, the District shall provide an attestation to the State that such training has been completed.

  1. On or before September 30, 2026, the District shall provide training to appropriate staff related to the provision of PPT Meeting Notices to parents.
    1. Included in the content of such training should be a review of:
      1. Chapter 3 of the Model Special Education Procedures and Practices Manual 2026 (section related to Notice of PPT Meeting) Chapter 3: Planning and Placement Team (PPT) Members, and the following:
        1. In cases when one or more PPT participant(s) is/are asked to attend a PPT meeting by the District and that/those participant(s) was/were not included in the Notice of PPT Meeting to the parents, the District may request that the parents waive their right to five-school-day prior notice and consent to the participation of that/those individual(s) in the meeting. If consent is granted, then the meeting may be convened as scheduled, a new Notice of PPT Meeting must be developed which includes the additional participant(s), and the additional participant(s) must be listed as members of the PPT on the corresponding IEP.
        2. In cases when one or more PPT participant(s) is/are asked to attend a PPT meeting by the District and that/those participant(s) was/were not included in the Notice of PPT Meeting to the parents and the parents do not consent to waive their right to prior notice or consent to the participation of that/those individual(s) in the meeting, the meeting may not be convened as scheduled. In such case, the District must reschedule the meeting and re-notice the parents with the additional participant(s) included in that notice.

Upon completion of this corrective action, the District shall provide an attestation to the State that such corrective action has been completed.

  1. On or before September 30, 2026, the District shall review the itemized listing of documents contained in the Student’s CT-SEDS education records as compared to a list of CT-SEDS education records that the District has already provided to the Parent via email, identify which records in the Student’s CT-SEDS records have not been previously provided to the Parent, and provide one free copy of those records to the Parent via email. The District shall concurrently send the State a list of those records newly provided to the Parent.

Upon completion of this corrective action, the District shall provide an attestation to t]he State that such corrective action has been completed.